State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Hemmons-Taylor , 2023 Ohio 1379 ( 2023 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Hemmons-Taylor, 2023-Ohio-1379.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE EX REL MARIAH CRENSHAW, :
Relator, :
No. 112602
v. :
WILLA MAE HEMMONS- :
TAYLOR, ET AL.,
:
Respondent.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: COMPLAINTS DISMISSED
DATED: April 21, 2023
Writs of Quo Warranto and Mandamus
Order No. 563593
Appearances:
Mariah Crenshaw, pro se.
Willa Hemmons, East Cleveland Director of Law, and
Heather McCollough, Assistant Director of Law, pro se.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, P.J.:
Relator, Mariah Crenshaw, seeks a writ of quo warranto or, in the
alternative, mandamus to remove respondents, Willa Mae Hemmons-Taylor and
Heather McCullough, from positions of law director and assistant law
director/prosecutor for the city of East Cleveland, respectively. Crenshaw claims
that respondents do not validly hold these positions. However, because relator lacks
standing to maintain an action in quo warranto and what she seeks is in essence a
declaratory judgment with injunction, we sua sponte dismiss the complaint and
amended complaint.
I. Background
On April 7, 2023, Crenshaw filed a “verified complaint for writ of quo
warranto and injunction to cease engaging in representing the city of East Cleveland
for multiple violations of the [East Cleveland] City Charter.” The complaint includes
allegations that respondents have engaged in actions that violate the city charter,
were never validly appointed to the positions they claim to hold, are not qualified to
hold their claimed positions, and have engaged in activity that has harmed relator
through their representation of the city of East Cleveland. The complaint sought to
have this court interpret provisions of the city charter and ordinances and declare
respondents unable to hold their claimed positions.
On April 11, 2023, this court ordered relator to show cause why the
case should not be dismissed for lack of standing and stayed the case pending the
outcome of briefing. In response, relator filed a brief arguing that she possessed the
requisite standing to maintain the action and filed an amended complaint where she
added a claim for relief in mandamus. In her amended complaint, relator asks this
court:
1. To require “respondents” to provide this court with legal
authorit(ies) which allows them to engage in legal representation on
behalf of the residents of the city of East Cleveland, and
2. To determine the correct language of the city of East Cleveland
Charter, and
3. To issue an order for “respondents” to immediately vacate the
office(s) and to return any compensation they have received from the
city of East Cleveland as of at least January 26, 2023.
Respondents filed a brief on April 12, 2023, styled “motion to dismiss
for lack of standing.” There, they argued that relator lacked standing and requested
that the action be dismissed.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Standard for Sua Sponte Dismissal of a Complaint
An original action is subject to dismissal without notice and on the
court’s own initiative where the claims are frivolous or “‘“the claimant obviously
cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.”’” State ex rel. Neal v.
Mandros, 162 Ohio St.3d 154, 2020-Ohio-4866, 164 N.E.3d 418, ¶ 8, quoting State
ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147 Ohio St.3d 462, 2016-Ohio-5781, 67 N.E.3d 755, ¶ 12,
quoting State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-6573, 859
N.E.2d 923, ¶ 14. A court must presume as true all material allegations of the
complaint and make all reasonable inference in favor of the relator. Id., citing Scott
at ¶ 14. After doing so, a complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal if it is beyond
doubt that relators could prove no set of facts entitling them to a writ. Id.B. Requirements for Quo Warranto and Mandamus
A writ of quo warranto “is the exclusive remedy to litigate the right of
a person to hold a public office.” State ex rel. Flanagan v. Lucas, 139 Ohio St.3d
559, 2014-Ohio-2588, 13 N.E.3d 1135, ¶ 12, citing State ex rel. Deiter v.
McGuire, 119 Ohio St.3d 384, 2008-Ohio-4536, 894 N.E.2d 680, ¶ 20. See
also State ex rel. Ebbing v. Ricketts, 133 Ohio St.3d 339, 2012-Ohio-4699, 978
N.E.2d 188, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Johnson v. Richardson, 131 Ohio St.3d 120,
2012-Ohio-57, 961 N.E.2d 187, ¶ 15.
An action for writ of quo warranto is primarily an action that belongs
to the state. R.C. 2733.04 and 2733.05 specify that a writ of quo warranto must be
brought by the state attorney general or a prosecuting attorney of the state.
However, a private individual may bring an action for writ of quo warranto under
certain circumstances. R.C. 2733.06 sets forth the standing requirements for an
individual bringing an action sounding in quo warranto. Flanagan at ¶ 19. It
provides that “[a] person claiming to be entitled to a public office unlawfully held
and exercised by another may bring an action therefor by himself or an attorney at
law, upon giving security for costs.” R.C. 2733.08 adds:
When an action in quo warranto is brought against a person for
usurping an office, the petition shall set forth the name of the person
claiming to be entitled to the office, with an averment of his right
thereto. Judgment may be rendered upon the right of the defendant,
and also on the right of the person averred to be so entitled, or only
upon the right of the defendant, as justice requires.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has interpreted these statutes to require
a private individual bringing a claim for writ of quo warranto to show two things: A
good-faith belief that the relator is entitled to the public office and the respondent is
unlawfully holding the disputed public office. Id. at ¶ 20, quoting State ex rel. Halak
v. Cebula, 49 Ohio St.2d 291, 361 N.E.2d 244 (1977), citing State ex rel. Heer v.
Butterfield, 92 Ohio St. 428, 111 N.E. 279 (1915), paragraph one of the syllabus; State
ex rel. Lindley v. The Maccabees, 109 Ohio St. 454, 142 N.E. 888 (1924); State ex
rel. Smith v. Nazor, 135 Ohio St. 364, 21 N.E.2d 124 (1939).
A writ of mandamus may issue where a relator establishes by clear
and convincing evidence that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief requested,
respondent has a clear legal duty to provide that relief, and relator lacks any other
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Clough v. Franklin
Cty. Children Servs., 144 Ohio St.3d 83, 2015-Ohio-3425, 40 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 10,
citing State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d
452, ¶ 6. The legal duty must be unequivocal and without any discretion on the part
of the respondent. State ex rel. McElroy v. O'Donnell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 111752, 2022-Ohio-3240, ¶ 13, citing State ex rel. Karmasu v. Tate, 83 Ohio
App.3d 199, 205, 614 N.E.2d 827 (4th Dist.1992).
C. Standing for Quo Warranto
A court is required to determine that a claimant has the requisite
standing to bring an action before addressing the merits. Flanagan, 139 Ohio St.3d
559, 2014-Ohio-2588, 13 N.E.3d 1135, at ¶ 17. Whether a party has standing to
institute an action seeks to determine whether the claimant bringing the action is
the real party in interest. “The concept of ‘standing’ involves whether the plaintiff
to a civil action has alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy
that he or she is entitled to have a court hear the case.” Progressive Macedonia,
LLC v. Shepherd, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2020-T-0036, 2021-Ohio-792, ¶ 59, citing
Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St.3d 287, 2012-Ohio-780, 964 N.E.2d 414, ¶ 15.
In Flanagan, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that to have
standing a private individual requesting a writ of quo warranto must have a good-
faith belief that he or she is entitled to the disputed office. Id. at ¶ 22-23. Without a
claim that the relator is entitled to hold the disputed office, a relator lacks standing
to bring and maintain the action. Id. at ¶ 29.
Flanagan involved the results of a contested sheriff election. The
losing candidate brought a complaint for writ of quo warranto, arguing that the
winning candidate did not have the requisite qualifications to serve as sheriff under
R.C. 311.01. Id. at ¶ 1. The Flanagan Court did not reach the merits of this claim.
Instead, it held that as the loser of an election, the claimant had no good-faith belief
that he was entitled to hold the office. Id. at ¶ 27.
Here, Crenshaw does not claim that she is entitled to hold the position
of law director or assistant or deputy law director for the city of East Cleveland. She
has specifically acknowledged this in her briefing to this court. Without such a
claim, courts have sua sponte dismissed complaints for writs of quo warranto. See,
e.g., State ex rel. Baker v. Fox, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2022 AP 01 0002,
2022-Ohio-667 (complaint sua sponte dismissed where relator did not assert good-
faith belief that they were entitled to hold the position).
Relator asks this court to adopt the view of the dissenting justices in
Flanagan, 139 Ohio St.3d 559, 2014-Ohio-2588, 13 N.E.3d 1135, and find that
relator possesses standing in this action. However, an appellate court is not free to
disregard binding precedent of the Supreme Court of Ohio and adopt an
interpretation of the law expressed by a minority of justices. Delost v. Ohio Edison
Co., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 10 MA 162, 2012-Ohio-4561, ¶ 19. This court is bound
to follow the holding of the majority in Flanagan and find that relator lacks
standing.
Relator, at several places, argues that she has standing as a taxpayer
to initiate and maintain suit. For instance, she asserts
“[r]elator” does not claim [a] right to the specific public offices which
“respondents” occupy but is a taxpayer who has a right to challenge
persons who are unlawfully holding public offices and receiving public
tax dollars they are not entitled to. A reasonable mind can conclude
there is a good faith standing [sic] to establish legal standing in this
unique situation.
The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that taxpayers lack standing to
pursue claims in quo warranto. State ex rel. Cater v. N. Olmsted, 69 Ohio St.3d 315,
322, 631 N.E.2d 1048 (1994), citing State ex rel. Annable v. Stokes, 24 Ohio St.2d
32, 262 N.E.2d 863 (1970). See also Esarco v. Brown, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08
MA 47, 2008-Ohio-4517, ¶ 7 (rejecting a similar claim that a relator had standing in
quo warranto as a “resident, taxpayer, and registered elector” to seek the removal of
a member of Youngstown City Council). Relator’s arguments provide no basis for
this court to find that she has standing to seek the removal of a law director, assistant
law director, or city prosecutor for the city of East Cleveland.1
The facts as alleged in the complaint and amended complaint, taken
as true, show beyond doubt that relator lacks standing to maintain the instant
complaint for writ of quo warranto. Therefore, we sua sponte dismiss the request
for writ of quo warranto in the complaint and amended complaint.
D. Jurisdiction for Mandamus
In her amended complaint, relator also seeks a writ of mandamus
where she requests that this court interpret the language or validity of certain
codified ordinances of the city of East Cleveland and declare whether respondents
have been validly appointed to and are qualified for their positions. Relator also
seeks an injunction that prohibits respondents from acting as lawyers for the city of
East Cleveland, including several cases in which relator is a party. Finally, she asks
this court to order respondents to return money they have received from this
allegedly improper representation from the time of an East Cleveland City Council
resolution that declared the position of law director and prosecutor vacant.2
1 Relator also does not appear to be a resident of East Cleveland, Ohio, the
municipality she alleges employs respondents. Relator lists a Cleveland, Ohio address for
herself in her complaint and amended complaint.
2 Relator’s complaint includes quotations from the East Cleveland City Charter that
indicates that the mayor, not city council, has authority to remove certain directors of
offices within the city.
No matter how these are labeled, the thrust of relator’s claims sound
in quo warranto. “‘[I]t is well settled that “quo warranto is the exclusive remedy by
which one’s right to hold a public office may be litigated.”’” Zeigler v. Zumbar, 129
Ohio St.3d 240, 2011-Ohio-2939, 951 N.E.2d 405, ¶ 23, quoting State ex rel. Deiter
v. McGuire, 119 Ohio St.3d 384, 2008-Ohio-4536, 894 N.E.2d 680, ¶ 20, quoting
State ex rel. Battin v. Bush, 40 Ohio St.3d 236, 238-239, 533 N.E.2d 301 (1988). As
stated above, relator lacks standing to assert these claims in quo warranto and she
may not avoid this standing requirement by retitling her request for relief.
To the extent these claims do not sound in quo warranto, they seek
declaratory judgment and associated injunctive relief. “It is axiomatic that ‘if the
allegations of a complaint for a writ of mandamus indicate that the real objects
sought are a declaratory judgment and a prohibitory injunction, the complaint does
not state a cause of action in mandamus and must be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.’” State ex rel. Obojski v. Perciak, 113 Ohio St.3d 486, 2007-Ohio-2453,
866 N.E.2d 1070, ¶ 13, quoting State ex rel. Grendell v. Davidson, 86 Ohio St.3d
629, 634, 716 N.E.2d 704 (1999). In making this determination, courts should look
to whether the complaint seeks to prevent rather than compel official action. Id.,quoting State ex rel. Stamps v. Montgomery Cty. Automatic Data Processing Bd.,
42 Ohio St.3d 164, 166, 538 N.E.2d 105 (1989).
Here, relator seeks a declaration from this court that certain
provisions of East Cleveland City Charter were or were not validly enacted, a
determination of which provisions apply to the position of city law director, and a
declaration whether respondents are qualified to hold their respective positions.
Relator also asks this court to enjoin respondents from acting in their respective
positions and to return money the city of East Cleveland has paid them. These
claims do not sound in mandamus. Relator has not identified clear legal duties that
are imposed on respondents, the performance of which relator seeks to compel.
Relator, generally, alleges that respondents have violated provisions of the East
Cleveland City Charter. Mandamus may not be used to compel an official to
generally comply with laws or rules. State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold, 67 Ohio St.3d
123, 616 N.E.2d 230 (1993).
While styled as a claim for mandamus, to the extent relator’s
allegations do not sound in quo warranto, relator clearly asks for declaratory
judgment and prohibitory injunction. This court lacks the requisite jurisdiction as
outlined in the Ohio Constitution to grant the requested relief. State ex rel. Swopes
v. McCormick, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110860, 2022-Ohio-306, ¶ 19, citing State ex
rel. Esarco v. Youngstown City Council, 116 Ohio St.3d 131, 2007-Ohio-5699, 876
N.E.2d 953; State ex rel. Obojski; State ex rel. Grendell.
For these reasons, relator’s request for writ of mandamus must be
dismissed.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, relator lacks standing to bring an action
in quo warranto. Relator’s request for writ of mandamus must be dismissed because
this court does not have jurisdiction over claims for declaratory judgment. Relator’s
complaint and amended complaint are therefore sua sponte dismissed. Costs
assessed against relator. The clerk is directed to serve on the parties notice of this
judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).
Complaints dismissed.
_____________________________
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR